Well, duh, but we're talking here about really good games, some developed for over 20 years, that currently present today's teenagers with 0 or next-to-none visual stimulation. In this context, isn't it a bit of a no-brainer that *any* visual stimulation allows the game to reach people who would have otherwise disqualified it at a first glance?
Again, I'm not talking about ditching the text UI necessarily, just pointing out the painfully obvious fact that when 10,000 teenagers talk about a game being "immersive", only one of them means "like a good book". The rest mean "professional graphics that excite me long enough to find out how good the game actually is." How can it be a waste of time to try and tap into those wider audiences?
To me, what you've written above boils down to another argument for doing nothing with graphics, of which we've already had plenty in this thread. Let me be direct. You don't need justifications for doing nothing, just go ahead and do it. It's fine by me, and I'm sure it's fine by everyone else. But don't try to sway others to do nothing with the argument that, at the end of the day, what they are doing may not work. That's just nay-saying, and not something any of us knows.
What we *do* know is that doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome doesn't work. If you expect the same outcome, the same <100 people logging for decades, then you're fine. But this thread is about engaging wider audiences.
This is a version of the "two categories" argument we already got from ForgottenMUD. The problem with this kind of thinking is not so much that it's super-simplistic, but that it is actually pretty clearly another justification for doing nothing to broaden your game's appeal. Dividing teenagers into "those who won't play my game no matter what" vs. "those who would play my game without me having to change a thing" is very easy. It affirms that you are an infallible game designer, and reveals that you feel comfortable with whatever you have already achieved so far with your game. The argument makes no sense for anyone who is actively trying to reach more players.
I have spent 3 years observing my intended audience. It includes people who love to read as well as the majority, who don't, and have to be eased in. It includes people who want to play for 12 hrs straight as well as people who have 5 min. while standing in line, want to pop in, do something meaningful, and pop out. It includes people of many categories and of varying desires, who on any given day may behave like casual players, or hardcore ones, play on desktop in all text, as well as on the GUI when they are on the move or in the park.
What I've learned by observing my audience is that there are many things I can do to cater to different tastes without compromising the quality or depth of the game. I'm trying to share some of that insight in this thread in order to encourage others to think out of the box a little bit.
I'm hung up on "post-desktop" players in general more than just teenagers. But teenagers are the Holy Grail because they ensure a healthy influx of people who have a long playing career in front of them. Teenagers are the vets of tomorrow, and they wield the most viral power. But their mothers would also be nice. And in fact, it is one of the things that is already happening in my game, cross-generational gameplay. It's pretty commonplace, thanks to the game offering visual means to play *as well as* supporting all traditional text-based clients (many with enhancements).
On the topic of graphical clients alongside text ones again, I just want to wrap up by saying that it doesn't matter how many people tell me that 1 + 1 < 1. I will not believe it. More different clients = more reach. That's what I believe.
It's not at all about giving the masses what they want (Madden NFL #26?). It's about giving them what they didn't realize they were missing. Wrap a great game in the same packaging that they are used to not throwing away immediately, provide the most visually appealing first 10 min. you can, the lowest learning curve, and *then* begin to unravel the depth of the game. The genre doesn't have to change in the least bit--the presentation absolutely must!
I'm going to pretend you didn't just insult my favorite genre horribly
But seriously, are you the same person who wrote this description of AoA:
I notice that whoever wrote that didn't mention at all that the game is a MUD. And that is the right move, because when you walk two steps outside of this very tiny hovel that we call the MUD Community, no-one knows or cares if a game is 'fully qualified' to call itself a MUD.
I agree. And part of the problem is people jumping on devs about their ideas/projects not being real MUDs instead of jumping to point out to *broader audiences* out there how MUD-like some of the most successful MMOs are. The former just makes people who do innovative things on the client side want to leave this community. The latter, who knows, might actually get us some new players!
I feel discussions of MUD clients that remove the input command line and the scrolling output absolutely belong under "Advanced MUD Concepts". If the site admins side with you on that one, we may see this thread deleted. If not, I will continue to argue that a game doesn't stop being a MUD just because one of the ways to play involves less than 60% reading, 80% typing. Or 70% reading, 90% typing. Or, <increase the percentages here until your own game stops being a MUD :>.
Thank you. I'll try to keep everyone posted once in a while. My nick is 'plamzi'.
I already have that. Now I want a superb game with a *huge* community that more and more people absolutely love